Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Corpsesarefun wrote:There were there, they surrounded the city entirely.

Thats not the same. If you have terrorists or armed forces taking over a US city, that city would be overrun within 24 hours, if nothing else by local units of the national guard.
Plus you couldn't do that in a real US city. The local citizenry would blow you to heck.

EDIT: I'll move off my point as its distracting from the thread.

Bane over threw Gotham by using the majority of the populace using the Rich as a target, and released the people that used to inhabit Arkham onto the streets,and the only soldiers that went into Gotham to scout it were killed and theirs bodies out on display,

Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

The first tank crosses a bridge and a nuclear bomb goes off killing everyone killing the entire city and surrounding military. Any military intervention of any kind and they would have turned the city and all 6 million or so inhabitants to ash, including the military personnel sent in.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

The first tank crosses a bridge and a nuclear bomb goes off killing everyone killing the entire city and surrounding military. Any military intervention of any kind and they would have turned the city and all 6 million or so inhabitants to ash, including the military personnel sent in.

or at least thats what the guy in the mask says. Meanwhile a Marine sniper has already smeared his cerebellum against the wall.

Frazz, unless you are watching the movie just stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Unless you want everybody to spoiler the whole movie there is no point to it.

Just watch the movie or let it be. If you don't plan on watching it then why even complain about a plot you don't know care about.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

The first tank crosses a bridge and a nuclear bomb goes off killing everyone killing the entire city and surrounding military. Any military intervention of any kind and they would have turned the city and all 6 million or so inhabitants to ash, including the military personnel sent in.

or at least thats what the guy in the mask says. Meanwhile a Marine sniper has already smeared his cerebellum against the wall.

I'm guessing you weren't really paying attention to the film at all, which begs the question: why go to a movie just to take a nap?

d-usa wrote:Frazz, unless you are watching the movie just stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Unless you want everybody to spoiler the whole movie there is no point to it.

Just watch the movie or let it be. If you don't plan on watching it then why even complain about a plot you don't know care about.

You're right. Moving on.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

The first tank crosses a bridge and a nuclear bomb goes off killing everyone killing the entire city and surrounding military. Any military intervention of any kind and they would have turned the city and all 6 million or so inhabitants to ash, including the military personnel sent in.

or at least thats what the guy in the mask says. Meanwhile a Marine sniper has already smeared his cerebellum against the wall.

I'm guessing you weren't really paying attention to the film at all, which begs the question: why go to a movie just to take a nap?

Even worse - he hasn't seen the movie at all!

And is leaning towards not seeing it until he can rent it!

Frazz - get off our lawn!!!

Already off na na na!

I'm a little late to this but I liked it but thought it was the weakest of the trilogy. Wish there had been a bit more of an "epic' finish to Bane. He gets killed by being shot by Catwoman. Lame death.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like time to put down your average Latin American insurrection...

The first tank crosses a bridge and a nuclear bomb goes off killing everyone killing the entire city and surrounding military. Any military intervention of any kind and they would have turned the city and all 6 million or so inhabitants to ash, including the military personnel sent in.

or at least thats what the guy in the mask says. Meanwhile a Marine sniper has already smeared his cerebellum against the wall.

I think you're overestimating the skills of any sniper, if you think that they can make a shot that will definitely kill a man, who doesn't make himself very obvious (apart from a few key moments involving large speeches) from outside a city represented as being more densely packed than central new york.
I for one was unaware that snipers are now capable of both seeing and shooting through walls.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm a little late to this but I liked it but thought it was the weakest of the trilogy. Wish there had been a bit more of an "epic' finish to Bane. He gets killed by being shot by Catwoman. Lame death.

People overrate TDK because Heath Ledger went unconsciousness and channeled the Joker perfectly. All the scenes without him were unexceptional.

I think each film is roughly equal, what matters it that a whole the entire trilogy was excellent, but in terms of enjoyment, not film criticism, the Avengers was superior to all of them.

Frazzled wrote:

Corpsesarefun wrote:There were there, they surrounded the city entirely.

Thats not the same. If you have terrorists or armed forces taking over a US city, that city would be overrun within 24 hours, if nothing else by local units of the national guard.
Plus you couldn't do that in a real US city. The local citizenry would blow you to heck.

Basically it's a Batman thing. There's always a reason to explain why no-one but Batman can solve this problem. Sometimes you just accept it as the kind of contrivance needed to have one single lunatic in a bat suit saving the city, and other times it's pretty stupid.

Honestly I didn't mind this one so much, but I can see how it'd be really annoying for some people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:I think you're overestimating the skills of any sniper, if you think that they can make a shot that will definitely kill a man, who doesn't make himself very obvious (apart from a few key moments involving large speeches) from outside a city represented as being more densely packed than central new york.

Wasn't Gotham meant to just be New York this time? All the aerial shots looked a lot like New York, and there was that big central park in there.

Which something else that was kind of weird, because wasn't Gotham in The Dark Knight meant to be Chicago?

Gotham is a combination of the worst of all the major cities.

sebster wrote:[Wasn't Gotham meant to just be New York this time? All the aerial shots looked a lot like New York, and there was that big central park in there.

Which something else that was kind of weird, because wasn't Gotham in The Dark Knight meant to be Chicago?

Gotham in TDKR was/is an amalgam of several large US cities: New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Newark. Chicago was the primary filming location for Gotham in TDK.

"Metropolis is New York during the day, Gotham is New York at night", is probably one of the better known characterizations of the city. I have heard it attributed to both Frank Miller and John Byrne, so I don't know who actually said it, but it seems about right.

d-usa wrote:Gotham is a combination of the worst of all the major cities.

Ahtman wrote:Gotham in TDKR was/is an amalgam of several large US cities: New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Newark. Chicago was the primary filming location for Gotham in TDK.

"Metropolis is New York during the day, Gotham is New York at night", is probably one of the better known characterizations of the city. I have heard it attributed to both Frank Miller and John Byrne, so I don't know who actually said it, but it seems about right.

I know how Gotham is thought of, across the whole franchise. But with TDK they took what I thought was a pretty clever idea and put it into a real city, and used Chicago for that. But this time the distinctive landmarks were New York. I was wondering if anyone had read any production discussion about that?

It is interesting to me that different people seem to focus on different scenes. Others have told me they thought it focused on Philly. I haven't read it but I wouldn't mind the big production diary and art book that was put out.

I got the impression he wanted Gotham to represent American cities in general, and thus made it a hodge-podge of different ones, instead of one distinct city. Perhaps it was becuase it was the last film, or maybe he felt the nature of the story was more well suited to it being a bit of a jigsaw puzzle city instead of a homogenous one. I admit to being a bit surprised when it was said they weren't going back to Chicago, as I imagine the Chicago Film commission was as well.

d-usa wrote:Gotham is a combination of the worst of all the major cities.

Impossible. It has like no chemical plant leaks or refinery fires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

d-usa wrote:Gotham is a combination of the worst of all the major cities.

Ahtman wrote:Gotham in TDKR was/is an amalgam of several large US cities: New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Newark. Chicago was the primary filming location for Gotham in TDK.

"Metropolis is New York during the day, Gotham is New York at night", is probably one of the better known characterizations of the city. I have heard it attributed to both Frank Miller and John Byrne, so I don't know who actually said it, but it seems about right.

I know how Gotham is thought of, across the whole franchise. But with TDK they took what I thought was a pretty clever idea and put it into a real city, and used Chicago for that. But this time the distinctive landmarks were New York. I was wondering if anyone had read any production discussion about that?

Wasn't the Batman Returns much more fantastical though with the super elevated train, and almost hive like quality. Indeed, are there any scenes in the city in actual daylight where it doesn't look like it just rained or some pipes are steaming nearby? DK looked like Chicago both in the day and night. I actually thought DK was much more "realistic" than the first film. The Joker wasn't part of some BS 2,000 year old cult but instead a visualization of a brilliant and charismatic Charles Manson.

In the comic books, I always felt that Metropolis mirrored New York and Gotham mirrored Chicago, with a hodge-podge of other cities mixed in to fit the canvas of the current storyline. But I could be wrong.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm a little late to this but I liked it but thought it was the weakest of the trilogy. Wish there had been a bit more of an "epic' finish to Bane. He gets killed by being shot by Catwoman. Lame death.

He got exactly what was coming to him. Dare I say, he got what he deserved?

Anything "Epic" actually would have been "Clichéd".

This last page is ridiculous, you fethers put far too much effort into coming up with reasons why a comic book wouldn't work in real life.. of course it wouldn't work in real life! Like I said, I thought the fact that the eternally lazy police officers actually went to war and ran at a line of criminals instead of going home was less realistic than the fact the government didn't do much about the whole city on lock-down thing!

Lets have it right, the first fether with an AK47 would end Batman, its supposed to be entertainment not a documentary. The bit where he takes down 6 guys armed with sub machine guns in the first movie would have been the end of Batman, let alone the other 7 hours of celluloid!

At least Nolan attempted to make it remotely plausible.

Overall I liked the film, but I can agree with the people wondering what the hell Bane was doing in between capturing the city and detonating the bomb. I mean, we explicitly see him actually twiddling his thumbs at the court scenes more than once.

The film was extremely longwinded. To me, it seemed it was trying to do too much. It seemed to have several comics that it was drawing on as inspiration:
Dark Knight Returns: Aged and jaded batman pulled back into action by crisis.
Vengeance of Bane: Bane's backstory.
KnightFall: The breaking of Batman by Bane.
KnightsEnd: Batman's recovery and resurgence.
Cataclysm: Gotham is hit by a large disaster and descends into anarachy.
No Man's Land: Gotham, cut off from the rest of the United States and minus Batman, descends into tribalism and gang violence until Batman returns to restore order.
You could bundle the robin plotline into variously, the robin miniseries and nightwing graphic novels of the late nineties, but really it was it's own, separate story, along with Catwoman.

Any one of those comics could have made an amazing film. With all of them being used, you've got something slightly less coherent, overly long, and I suppose a bit stretched.

While as a long time batman fan, I was happy with all the little nods and the execution of the various bits, I felt that as film, it didn't hang together as well as Dark Knight. It was just a bit too ambitious to do everything it wanted to do as well as it could.
Highlights:
The cast. Bale does a brilliant and subtle job as a burned out batman. Caine continues to be awesome as Alfred. The younger fella they had playing Blake (yer man from Brick) was superb, and really drew me in. Hathaway did a great job as Catwoman. Hardy was superb as Bane, and the switch from good to evil for Talia was awesome. As usual, Gordon was bloody awesome as well because everything Gary Oldman does is amazing.
The last 3 minutes: The build up to revealing that Batman faked his own death, and that Blake/Robin is going to take over now (with the awesome "rising" end shot) sent me out of the film on a massive high.
Problems:
The two best protagonists (Gordon and Wayne) were sort of "out of it" for a lot of the movie.
The movie is too long. It has too many parts, and they feel pretty disconnected from each other.
The motivations of the antagonists are not clear, or not compelling. Similarly, the actions of the feds are not believable, to me.

Low Points:
The cops charging the army of goons at the end. I know it was all symbolology, but I didn't like it at all. It took what has primarily been a gritty and "real" franchise and made it silly. It's not WW1 any more, and those cops would not have done that. Anyway, after 3 months in the dark, I'd have said they'd have been suffering uncoupled circadian rhythms as well as probably some nasty infections brought on by gakking in close quarters for that long. And then Bane and Batman have another fist fight instead of someone just nailing bane with a rifle or something. Beh. Didn't work, but I guess they didn't have time for anything better.
Batman's recovery. Totally unbelievable, to be honest. But hey. I guess rage is the best medicine.
The cheesy love scene with Wayne and Talia. WTF. "Oh, we got rained on, and we're in a film. I guess we gotta shag now. And now that we've shagged, you are obsessively in love with me." I dunno, maybe Talia is a weasel in the sack or something.

Amaya wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm a little late to this but I liked it but thought it was the weakest of the trilogy. Wish there had been a bit more of an "epic' finish to Bane. He gets killed by being shot by Catwoman. Lame death.

People overrate TDK because Heath Ledger went unconsciousness and channeled the Joker perfectly. All the scenes without him were unexceptional.

I think each film is roughly equal, what matters it that a whole the entire trilogy was excellent, but in terms of enjoyment, not film criticism, the Avengers was superior to all of them.

Seems I need to watch a movie twice too get a true sense of it. First time I saw The Dark Knight i thought it was good but I liked it a lot better the second time I saw it. I think TDKR and Avengers were good but not super-awesome like I now think TDK is but maybe i need to see them again. Right now I'd rank them TDK; Batman Begins; TDKR. Avengers only reachs TDKR levels of coolness for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm a little late to this but I liked it but thought it was the weakest of the trilogy. Wish there had been a bit more of an "epic' finish to Bane. He gets killed by being shot by Catwoman. Lame death.

He got exactly what was coming to him. Dare I say, he got what he deserved?

Anything "Epic" actually would have been "Clichéd".

I know but I'm ok with cliched, epic showdowns with bad guys in comic movies. Especially over whatever that was and especially since Bane seemed to be channeling a cliched bad-guy-voice from saturday morning cartoons. And they certainly didn't avoid the mega-cliche of the ticking timebomb being dealt with at the last second even with a 5 month countdown did they?

Batman already beat him once in a fight (that is how they got into the room afterall), what would the purpose of a third fight right after that one be, other then to add to the already bloated running time?

They don't need another fight just some kind better resolution to the one they have. Their whole "relationship" was based on one of who's better in single combat. For him to go down by getting shot in the back by Catwomen...idunno seems like cheating by Batman.

Da Boss wrote:
The cheesy love scene with Wayne and Talia. WTF. "Oh, we got rained on, and we're in a film. I guess we gotta shag now. And now that we've shagged, you are obsessively in love with me." I dunno, maybe Talia is a weasel in the sack or something.

Weasle? She was trained by the Society of Secret Whisperers. She's their new goddam leader. I bet she's more than most men could handle in the sack. Not me, obviously.

While we're on that topic, did it aggravate no one else that the goddamned Batman did not do a background check on "Miss Tate" even when she handed his company a bajillion to make fusion a reality? I am referencing the post-shag cuddle scene where Batman is completely unaware of Tate's past. This is not a question of nitpicking the trilogy's supposed realism; this is a question of the trilogy making a huge, extremely problematic concession to the writer against the grain of a well-established character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Batman already beat him once in a fight (that is how they got into the room afterall), what would the purpose of a third fight right after that one be, other then to add to the already bloated running time?

Yeah, it's almost as if that whole scene was yet another terrible mistake in a movie filled with too many other mistakes ...

The more I consider the film, the more problems arise.

It has a lot of great individual moments and performances, but together they don't quite add up. The whole is less then the sum of its parts.

I agree. In the end, the film looks like it should be good. It sounds like it should be good. It feels like it should be good. But it is just really, really bad. I don't mean it is an absolute shambles, like the worst possible thing that could happen to any movie. It's watchable. It's got a lot of entertaining pieces. But the heart of any superhero movie is a moral compass and this movie lacks that. It is, in effect, heartless -- which ends up being a pretty good summary of a lot of what's wrong plot-wise and character-wise and ... well, just morally speaking.

Overall, I liked it. I was wondering what they were going to do with Bane, since IIRC in the comics he's basically a Luchadore on super-ultra-steroids and not really the kind of "Big Picture" villain as in previous movies.

The Robin thing was pretty telegraphed but not handled badly, IMO... I think it was hamfisted to have his real name actually be Robin instead of one of the Robins from the comics, but I guess the problem with doing that would be 1.)There's like four Robins
2.) Most movie goers wouldn't get it.

The only thing that surprised me was Talia al-Ghul.

I haven't seen Batman Begins in a while so I cannot for the life of me remember Ras al-Ghul's motivations, and therefore I don't really know why Bane wanted to destroy Gotham other than "CUZ I'M EVIL MUWAHAHAHAHA (and I'm doing what Ras al-Ghul wanted)." I also don't know why he sounded like Deckard Cain.

Overall it was pretty good and I'll definitely buy it on DVD, and make sure to watch Batman Begins before I see it again in an attempt to better understand why Bane does what he does.